[ad_1]
HRAUN/Getty Images
This story was first published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
The world can still hope to stave off the worst ravages of climate breakdown but only through a “now or never” dash to a low-carbon economy and society, scientists have said in what is in effect a final warning for governments on the climate.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, greenhouse gas emissions must reach a peak by 2025. They can be almost halved in the next decade according to the IPCC. This will give the world a chance to limit future warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Even though the final cost of doing it will be minimal, only a few percent global GDP per year by mid-century, it will require huge efforts from governments, businesses, as well as individuals.
But the chances were slim and the world was a small place. Failing to make the necessary changes, the body of the world’s leading climate scientists warned. Without urgently strengthening policies and actions, temperatures will soar to greater than 3 C with devastating consequences.
Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and co-chair of the working group behind the report, said: “It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”
The report on Monday was the third and final section of the IPCC’s latest comprehensive review of climate science, drawing on the work of thousands of scientists. The IPCC reports take seven years to compile. This could be the last warning that the world is on a path to climate collapse.
Though the report found it was now “almost inevitable” that temperatures would rise above 1.5 C—the level above which many of the effects of climate breakdown will become irreversible—the IPCC said it could be possible to bring them back down below the critical level by the end of this century. However, this could require technologies to remove carbon dioxide (which campaigners warned were not proven and cannot be used as a substitute for deep cuts in emissions.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said some governments and businesses were “lying” in claiming to be on track for 1.5 C. In a strongly worded rebuke, he warned: “Some government and business leaders are saying one thing—but doing another. They are lying. And the results will be catastrophic.”
Rising energy prices and the conflict in Ukraine have forced governments to rethink energy policies. Many countries—including the US, the UK and the EU—are You might consider increasing the use of fossil fuels as part of their response, but the IPCC report made clear that increasing fossil fuels would put the 1.5 C target beyond reach.
Guterres said: “Inflation is rising, and the war in Ukraine is causing food and energy prices to skyrocket. But increasing fossil fuel production will only make matters worse.”
John Kerry, the US special presidential envoy for climate, called the report “a defining moment for our planet” and warned governments must move faster. “The report tells us that we are currently falling short in our battle to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis and mobilize the urgent global action needed. But importantly, the report also tells us we have the tools we need to reach our goals, cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, reach net zero by 2050, and secure a healthier, cleaner planet,” he said.
The IPCC Working Group 3 Report found:
- If the world is to remain within 1.5 C, coal must be phased out. The current plan for new fossil fuel infrastructure would increase the temperature to 1.5 C.
- It is necessary to reduce methane emissions by a third.
- While it is important to preserve soils and grow forests, tree-planting can’t do enough to offset the continued emission of fossil fuels.
- Six times less investment is required to shift to a low carbon world than it should be.
- Global economics must change rapidly in all areas, including energy, transport, buildings, and food. New technologies, such as hydrogen fuel and carbon capture, will be required.
Pete Smith, a professor of soils and global change at Aberdeen University, said: “The time of reckoning is now. We have only a decade to get back on track. We use fossil fuels in all these things that we need to change.”
Poor countries warned they were not equipped to make the necessary changes. They needed financial assistance from richer states to cut their emissions and adapt to climate change. Madeleine Diouf Sarr, the chair of the least developed countries group at the UN climate talks, said: “There can be no new fossil fuel infrastructure. The emissions from existing or planned infrastructure alone are greater than scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 C with minimal or no overshoot. We cannot afford to lock in the use of fossil fuels.”
Catherine Mitchell, a professor emerita in energy policy at Exeter University, stated that it is important to prioritize the needs and wants of the poorest countries. “Unless we have social justice, there are not going to be more accelerated greenhouse gas reductions. These issues are tied together.”
Publication of this report was Delays of a few hours as governments wrangled with scientists in marathon sessions, culminating late on Sunday night, over the final messages in the 63-page summary for policymakers. While Scientists lead the IPCC reportsThe final messages for policymakers have been compiled by the governments.
The Guardian has learned that India, Saudi Arabia, China and China have all questioned messages relating to financing emissions reductions in the developing nations and phasing off fossil fuels. However, scientists said that the final summary was approved by all 195 governments.
This was the third installment of the IPCC’s sixth assessment report, covering ways of reducing emissions. It follows a section published last August, which warned. The climate was being irreversibly altered by humans.; and another section published at February’s end warning of Katastrophic consequences.
